Loading...
boa_03 21 1988LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY AND MINUTES MARCH 21, 1988 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being seven in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: John McDaniel - Chairman Earlene Douglas Cynthia Alderman Jim Mitchell Rex Crane Eduard Scharff' Ronald Pierce Members Absent: George Wells Thomas McGowan City Attorney Present: Bob Hall March 21, 1988 Item No. A - Z-4979 Owner: Twin City Transportation, Inc. Address: 1609 East 3rd Street Description: Lot 1, of Glass's Replat of Lots 1, 2, 10, 11 and 12, Block 2, of the Garland Addition to the City of Little Rock, Arkansas Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial Variance From the area provisions of Requested: Section 7-104.2-E.1 and 2 to permit a reduced front and side yard setbacks. Justification: If the shop is constructed at the location now called for by the Ordinance, it will for all practical purposes make our parking lot useless for its original purpose. Present Use of Property: Commercial Proposed Use of Property: Commercial STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are none to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analvs is The issues before the Board of Adjustment is that of a reduced front and side yard setback. The property is zoned "I -2" Light Industrial. Front yard setbacks in this zoning are to be 50 feet, the applicant is requesting six feet. Side yard setbacks are to be 15 feet, the applicant is requesting six feet. The purpose of the requested variance is to allow for construction of a maintenance shop in order to do routine repair work on company trucks. The repair would take place during the post meridiem work hours. The applicant feels that if the shop was located in another area it would obstruct the needed parking area on site. March 21, 1988 Item No. A - Continued The site fronts on East 3rd Street with an asphalt parking area to the front and rear of the site. The company in question, Twin City Transportation, encompasses the entire block from East 3rd, East 4th and Pepper Streets. There are residential uses on East 4th Street and on the east side of the site. For the present requested variance, staff feels that the applicant has not demonstrated that a hardship exists. Due to the fact of the type of use the new addition would house, it presents a problem that would impact the residential uses. Staff also feels that the residential zoning in the area will remain for sometime in the future. A more suitable location would be to place the new structure on the west side of the building. This would still allow for good maneuvering of the trucks on the site and maintain a suitable parking area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending denial of the variance as filed due to the impact the use will have to the residential neighbors. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (2-22-88) Mr. Ron Glass represented the applicant, Twin City Transportation. Mr. Glass stated that he totally disagreed with staff's recommendation. If the maintenance building was to be placed at any other location on the site, he would not be able to park his trucks nor would they be able to maneuver on and off the site. He also stated that the maintenance would be light such as oil changes and that there would not be any p.m. work hours. The staff reminded Mr. Glass that when the application was taken he indicated that there would be p.m. work hours. Staff restated that the location of the maintenance building at the present indicated position would place a hardship on the residential uses abutting the site. Mr. Glass stated that if he is not allowed to place the building where he has indicated then he probably would have to relocate his business due to the fact he purchased the building materials before he found out that he would not be able to construct a maintenance area. The maintenance building is needed because of the expense incurred when light maintenance is done when trucks are out on the road. March 21, 1988 Item No. A - Continued Staff was asked by the Board whether the residential uses would remain in the future. Staff stated that even though there is industrial zoning in the same vicinity of the site, the residential property would probably remain because of what is indicated on the zoning maps. Several of the Board members felt that a deferral would be appropriate in order to allow them time to meet on the site for a visual view in order to get a better feel for what the applicant was stating and to understand better staff's reason for denying the request. A motion was then made to defer the item until the March 21, 1988, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (3-21-88) Mr. Ron Glass represented the applicant, Twin City Transportation. There were no objectors present. Mr. Glass stated that he still disagreed with staff's recommendation and thought that by meeting on the site he clearly explained his position to the Board members. A gathering of the Board being five in number did meet on the site Feburary 29, 1988. Several members of the Board voiced their concerns about the location. One felt the proposed structure would be too much of an intrusion to the resident to the east. Another stated that due to the fact of the residential use being in the location the request would place an hardship on those neighbors. Several others stated that the applicant could adequately move the building to another location on the site and still be able to maneuver the trailers. After further discussion, a compromise was proposed to the applicant, which was to disallow the variance on the east side and allow it for the frontage on East 4th Street. This means that the requirement of 15 feet on the east side would have to met. The applicant stated he really needed and wanted both variances as applied for, but if he had no other recourse but denial for those two requests, he would accept the one variance as being recommended. A motion was then made to approve the variance for East 4th Street frontage but not for the east side yard which means the applicant will have to meet the requirement of 15 feet. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 2 noes (Alderman and Douglas), 2 absent. March 21, 1988 Item No. B - Z-1432-A Owner: Mehlco, Inc. Address: 7509 Cantrell Road Description: Long Legal Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial Variance From the height regulation provisions Requested: of Section 7-103.3-D to permit a tower 148 feet in height. Justification: The height variance is needed in order to reach the maximum population possible for a frequency of 3.0 kw power. Present Use of Property: Commercial Proposed Use of Property: Commercial STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are none to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis The application before the Board of Adjustment at this time is for a height variance of 148 feet. The property is zoned "C-3" General Commercial and the allowable height is 35 feet. The intent behind this request is for a radio tower. If permitted, the tower will be freestanding and encompass two parking spaces on the rear southeast corner of the Tanglewood Shopping Center. The applicant proposes to house the 3.0 kw low -power frequency radio station on the same site. Presently on site are commercial and office uses. Surrounding the property are residential uses to the south and part of the east. To the north and on the northeast corner, there are commercial uses and to the west commercial and residential. March 21, 1988 Item No. B - Continued Staff feels that the applicant has not adequately justified a hardship for a height variance. In the proposed location with a base dimension of 8 1/2 feet and height of 148 feet, the tower would be a considerable impact to the residential property. Also associated with this request, if approved, is the need for clarification in the Ordinance on whether a radio station licensed by the public falls within a "C-3" zoning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending denial of the variance as filed. The impact of the size of the base and height would place a considerable hardship on the residential property. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (2-22-88) Mrs. Terri Bonner represented the applicant, Mehlco, Inc. There were no objectors in attendance. Mrs. Bonner stated that she totally disagreed with staff's recommendation. She had several concerns, first being - that when she came in to apply for the variance she was told that she would receive a copy of staff's recommendation before the meeting. After discussion, it was learned that Mrs. Bonner had only received one sheet of the staff's write-up for her item, but there should have been two sheets. It was then explained that staff was sorry the mistake happened. Secondly, Mrs. Bonner wanted clarification as to what was meant by "C-3" not being a proper zone for a station licensed by the public. When she filled out the application, she was told it wa appropriate. Staff stated that particular clarification was for staff purposes and was put in the agenda because the City Attorney's Office had not yet made a determination when the agenda was printed but had since determined that a radio station licensed by the public, in fact, came under the "C-3" as interpreted by the Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Bonner then stated that the tower would be low impact and unobtrusive to the residential property and wanted to know what staff meant by the statement and recommendation that the tower would place a considerable hardship on the residential property. Staff stated that due to the fact the base of the tower would be 8' 6" and the height would be a 1481, it would in staff's opinion place a bad visual view to those residential neighbors. Another point that Mrs. Bonner made was there already is a higher as well as larger tower north of this site on Mississippi that is most obtrusive and places more impact on those residences than the tower she is proposing. Staff reminded the Board that the tower Mrs. Bonner was referring to was grandfathered (annexed) into the City before the City Zoning Ordinance was adopted. March 21, 1988 Item No. B - Continued Mrs. Bonner stated that the tower would take up only two parking spaces and she had present Mr. Dean Howard, the engineer for the proposal. Mr. Howard addressed the Board and spoke in regard to the technical aspect of the proposal. He explained the type of material the tower would be constructed of which is aluminum. He also stated that the tower would be freestanding which means that if the tower ever fell because of the weather it would not fall forward but would collapse in a folding manner and not endanger any of the other property surrounding the site. Mrs. Bonner was then asked if she planned to place a fence around the base of the tower. She stated, no, but staff stated that if the tower was approved, then staff would strongly recommended a fence be placed around the base to make it more safe and help prevent any possible intrusion. Mr. Howard stated he would have to agree with staff's recommendation. Mrs. Bonner was informed by the Board that in the past the Board really has not gone along with height variance for towers because the hardship usually is one of economic value which is not the type of hardship the Board is supposed to be concerned about. The question was then asked by the Board if another site would better serve the applicant's request. Staff stated that possibly if the tower was placed at the northwest corner of the site away from the residential property it would better serve the area. It would then be on the highest elevation of the site and still serve the purpose intended which is for the signal to reach the maximum population of the City. Mrs. Bonner stated that she felt the site proposed was the best, and during the discussion with the manager of the Tanglewood Shopping Center no other site was discussed. Mr. Dwight Blissard, manager of Tanglewood Shopping Center, then spoke and stated that no other site was discussed but since the station would be located in the building adjacent to the parking lot where the tower is being proposed, the thought was it would be the best site. The question was then asked of the applicant and Mr. Blissard if there would be a problem relocating the tower. Mr. Blissard stated that he didn't feel it would but agreed with Mrs. Bonner that the location proposed would be the best. Mrs. Bonner was then asked if she had any problem with this item being deferred for 30 days in order to allow time for a different location or site to be determined. Mrs. Bonner stated that the deferral would delay her plans because the application to the FCC has been sent, but rather than the request be denied she would accept the deferral. March 21, 1988 Item No. B - Continued A motion was then made to defer the item for a period of 30 days in order to allow the applicant time to find a different location on the site. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, 1 abstention (McDaniels). This item will be heard again at the March 21, 1988, meeting. The Board then informed Mrs. Bonner that just because the item was deferred it does not mean that if she comes back with a different location on -site it will be automatically approved. They then suggested that she meet with staff and see if the possible alternative location will work before the next meeting. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (3-21-88) Mrs. Terri Bonner acted as spokesperson for the applicant, Mehlco, Inc. There were no objectors present. Mrs. Bonner stated she had gotten together with the owner of Tanglewood Shopping Center and had come up with a different location but still preferred the original one. A Board member then asked if with the new location she would reduce the amount of height because the new location would be on a higher elevation. Mrs. Bonner stated she would if the FCC would allow it, but they would not because of certain rules and regulations that govern them. Mrs. Bonner was then asked what type of programming would this station operate under, and she stated, "classical." A motion was then made to approve the height variance for the original location. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 1 no (Douglas), 2 absent. March 21, 1988 Item No. 1 - Z-2371-A Owner: The Crestwood Company /General Properties Address: 617 South Broadway Description: Lots 1-4 and Lots 9 -12, Block 106, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "GB" General Business Variance From the parking requirement provisions Requested: of Section 43-35 (1) of the Central Little Rock Ordinance to permit leasing of parking spaces to the public. Justification: (1) The leasing of the parking spaces promotes the most desirable use of the property, in that this property is already fashioned so as to be a parking garage. (2) The leasing of the parking spaces provides off - street parking in conjunction with the development of a commercial area. Present Use of Property: Parking garage Proposed Use of Property: Parking garage available to the public STAFF REPORT: A. Enqineerinq Issues There are none to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis At issue before the Board of Adjustment is a request from the Holiday Inn City Center to allow for the present four -story garage to be contracted out in order for some of the parking spaces to be used commercially. This particular parcel of property is located west of Broadway. The Central Little Rock Ordinance states that the parking requirement is one space per guest room. A block north of this location is the Metrocentre area which requires zero parking, i.e., March 21, 1988 Item No. 1 - Continued Capitol Towers Parking Garage. In the Central Little Rock Ordinance, commercial lots are permitted but exempt from enclosure which is intended for those lots that are not confined by a roof and sides. The applicant states that free parking will continue to be offered to the hotel guests. On an average yearly occupancy, there has been recently only a 42 percent usage of the garage by the hotel guests. Therefore, the applicants request is for more than half or 55 percent of the parking spaces to be leased out. To the rear of the property between the garage and hotel is a 20-foot alley. A 15-foot skyway is constructed that connects the two structures. Since the location of this property is in the Central Little Rock area, the Zoning Ordinance requirements do not apply. The Central Little Rock Ordinance would prevail in the requirements and restrictions. Staff feels that because of the fact the hotel use does not generate a lot of traffic in that a lot of the occupancies are either picked up or dropped off, the applicant's request is a reasonable one. But, during those times when more of the hotel rooms would possibly be in use, some provision will need to be provided. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval subject to: (a) a maximum of 140 spaces be provided for guest parking only and be designated for the first two lower level floors, and (b) the remaining 176 spaces be used as leased parking spaces located on the upper two level floors with some type of marking to indicate that they are in fact leased spaces. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Mr. Victor Fleming represented the applicant, the Crestwood Company /General Properties. There was one objector present. Mr. Scott Daniel, who because of an oversight did not address the meeting but this record shall indicate that on the registration card it is noted that he was in opposition to the requested variance. Mr. Fleming stated that he was in receipt of staff's recommendation but felt that they over extended their authority by suggesting that the parking areas be designated as to the use service. The request is for the contracting out of the parking deck for the leasing of approximately 70 percent of the parking as commercial use. Mr. Fleming stated he doesn't feel that the intent of the ordinance which indicates one space per guest room was meant to be totally for that use only. His client had no March 21, 1988 Item No. 1 - Continued intention of violating the covenants of the ordinance. He pointed out that in staff's analysis where it states that only 42 percent of the garage is used on a yearly basis doesn't apply to the garage but to the hotel occupancy. In their letter to staff, it was wasn't indicated how many parking spaces are used on an average basis. He then submitted a letter which addressed the parking garage average occupancy. The letter indicated that an average of less than 100 cars per day represent hotel clientele in the garage. He then stated that in staff's analysis where it indicated the hotel wants to lease out 55 percent of the parking spaces was incorrect. What his client wanted was to be able to lease out all of the parking spaces not occupied by the hotel guests. Also included in the letter submitted to the Board were explanations of the type of hardships associated with the marking of the spaces, which aqain he felt, the staff by recommending striping of the spaces and designating their use had intruded into the day-to-day operations of the hotel. There is a lease that has not been executed with National Garage which is so worded that in the event the lease is enacted, parking will be provided for all hotel guests, employees, restaurant patrons, and attendants of the hotel will be given preferential treatment regarding the available parking spaces. Because of the expertise of the contracting agent, a sliding scale will be used to ensure that not all the parking spaces are occupied at any given time. A suggestion to the Board would be to grant permission to open the garage to the public without any hard and fast numbers but with the understanding from the Crestwood Company and assurances from them that they will not allow the intent of the ordinance to be violated. The applicant would like for the Board to allow a period of six months to see if this suggestion would work after which time if it's proven that it doesn't, then other measures can be taken. After a considerable amount of discussion regarding staff's intent in the recommendation such as the 55 percent figure coming from one of Mr. Fleming's staff and not just arbitrarily decided upon by staff, the purpose of the designated location for the guest parking versus the lease parking, the Board concern regarding what exactly was the hardship beside the financial aspect and what guarantees can the applicant provide that during the peak hours of the hotel enough spaces would be provided. Mr. Kenny Scott of March 21, 1988 Item No. 1 - Continued the Zoning Enforcement Office stated that he would like to caution the Board about the possible precedent that may be set by approving this request. It is the first received by his office and if approved probably would encourage other parking decks in the downtown area to seek the same request. The chairman then stated that it wasn't the intent of the Board to scrutinize the parking in the downtown area because the Board is very concerned about the availability of parking especially in this area of the City. The Board was under the impression that it was the hotel who would be leasing the parking spaces out and not a contractual agent like National Garage. Mr. Fleming stated that there is and isn't a contractural agent in that the applicant in essence wanted the most efficient operation possible. Therefore, the lease is partially signed, but at the surprise of both parties concerned, it was put on hold due to the City stating that the process would be in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. More discussion occurred between the Board, staff, and applicant. Mr. Fleming was then asked what would he state as the recommendation of his applicant. He then stated that what his applicant would like is approval of the request to open the parking spaces to the public with adequate assurances and adequate review on a periodic basis to ensure the spirit and intent of the one-to-one ratio of the Zoning Ordinance is not violated. The Board after discussion among themselves felt that a legal interpretation was needed before they could make a ruling on the request. Mr. Fleming was then asked if he could agree to a 30-day deferral at which time the City Attorney's Office would do some research and offer an opinion at the next meeting. Mr. Fleming agreed to the 30-day deferral. A motion was then offered to defer this item until the April 18, 1988, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. March 21, 1988 Item No. 2 - Z-1116-A Owner: Dr. Tyler Thompson Address: 5901 "H" Street Description: East 90 feet of Lots 19 and 20 in Block 7 of the Lincoln Park Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "O-3" General Commercial Variance From the area regulations provisions of Requested: Section 7-102.3-D.1 and 2 to permit construction with -a reduced front and side yard setback. Justification: The carport is needed for protection of cars from the weather as well as providing an outside entrance to the residential quarters which are upstairs. Present Use of Property: Office and Residential Proposed Use of Property: Office and Residential STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are none to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis The request before the Board of Adjustment is for the construction of a two -car carport with a deck and roof. There also will be stairs constructed leading to the upper level of the two -story structure where the entrance to the residential quarters will be secured. The roof will be constructed in order to provide protection from the weather when entering the residential quarters. With the proposed construction, the applicant will encroach in the front and side yard setbacks. The ordinance states that the front yard should be 25 feet and the applicant is desiring a front yard of 13.2 feet. Side yard setbacks in this zoning should be 10 feet, and the applicant is requesting a zero side yard setback. All the proposed construction March 21, 1988 Item No. 2 - Continued will be attached to the existing structure with guttering built on the south side for any potential runoff. Presently, the property is used for a dual purpose of which is an office on the ground level, that of which is a doctor's office, and the upper level is utilized for the resident where the entrance can only be secured by going through the office part. The structure is on a corner lot and fronts on "H" Street with a side entrance for employees on Buchanan Street. On the south side of the property, there are residential uses, to the west there are office uses, to the north is a vacant lot which is on a higher elevation, and south is a mixed use of residential and office. The lot immediately adjacent to the west side where the construction will occur is a parking lot. To the south of the property, there is a constructed concrete retaining wall as well as a wooden fence that extends the length of the property on the south and west sides. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval conditioned upon (a) the applicant providing for guttering to prevent any runoff to the adjacent property owners, (b) no overhang can be constructed that will extend over the west side, and (c) the two -car carport can never be enclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was represented by his attorney, Mr. Randall G. Wright. There were no objectors present. Mr. Wright was asked if he had anything to add to staff's recommendation. He stated no and was in complete agreement with staff's recommendation. A motion was then made to approve the request per staff's recommendation. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. March 21, 1988 Item No. 3 - Z-3559-A Owner: Ed Willis /Brad Walker, Agent Address: 516 and 518 East 9th Street Description: Long legal Zoned: "HR" High Density Residential Variance From the Central Little Rock Ordinance, Requested: a conditional use permit is requested to allow for a proposed use of a Community Facility Type A. Justification: This request is needed for the purpose of MEMS ambulance service to provide for a district post for the East Little Rock service area. Present Use of Property: Residential /Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Community Facility Type A STAFF REPORT: A. Enqineering Issues There are none to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis The proposal before the Board of Adjustment at this time is for a conditional use to allow for a satellite post for the MEMS Ambulance Authority in conjunction with an office use for the MEMS Alert Program to operate from a structure located in the MacArthur Park Historical District and falls under the regulation of the Central Little Rock Ordinance. The property in question is zoned "HR" High Density Residential and the use in question would be for a Community Facility Type A which by right is not an allowable use but is a permitted use with a conditional use permit. The structure will be used in its entirety for the purpose of the ambulance staff office and serve the East Little Rock area. There will be no change in the structure or effect upon the Historic District and its requirements. March 21, 1988 Item No. 3 - Continued The use as proposed will consist of one ambulance to be parked in the rear yard area of an existing structure that for several years occupied an advertising office under a conditional use permit. The property is bordered on the west by a multi -unit apartment structure, on the east the Little Rock Fire Station No. 2, on the north of the property is a multifamily residential and south is the MacArthur Park area. There is an existing unpaved driveway and parking area. On the west property line is a 1.9 foot wall. Also associated with this issue is a request before the Little Rock Board of Directors to assess the Authority's proposal and determine whether Resolution No. 5526 prohibits the location of this type community facility. The resolution adopted in April 1976, was the result of several very controversial land use decisions involving a pizza restaurant and a pancake shop rearing upon the park from the I-30 Frontage Road. Staff feels that the request of the applicant is a reasonable one with no effect on Resolution No. 5526 or impact to the MacArthur Park Historical District. A directive stating the above fact has been sent to the Board of Directors and will be addressed at their next meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval subject to the parking area and drive being brought up to standards with three parking spaces designated and the approval of the assessment regarding Resolution No. 5526 by the Board of Directors. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Mr. Brad Walker was in attendance representing the applicant as well as MEMS Ambulance. There were no objectors present. Mr. Walker stated he was in agreement to staff's recommendation all but the bringing of the parking area to standard , striped, and providing of the three parking spaces. He stated that since the lease from MEMS is only for a period of one year he would prefer the parking be delayed a year to see if MEMS would remain the tenant. He also stated he had discussed certain stipulations regarding MEMS Ambulance to the neighbors and had satisfied them to the point that they are no longer in opposition to the request. March 21, 1988 Item No. 3 - Continued Staff was then asked if Mr. Walker would be required to come back before the Board after a year. Staff stated, no, unless the parking requirements could not be met or the Board so feels that he should. A motion was then made to approve the request with a one year delay on the parking requirements. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. March 21, 1988 Item No. 4 - Z-4982 Owner: Dorothy Lynn Address: 2224 North Beechwood Description: Lot 1, Block 7 Elmhurst Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the Area Regulations Provision of Section 5-102.0 to permit construction of an accessory building to be less than 60 feet from a front property line. Justification: The storage building is needed to store yard tools and garden materials in order to protect them from vandalism and theft. Present Use of Property: Residential Proposed Use of Property: Residential STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are none to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis The applicant is seeking approval from the ordinance requirements for the construction of an 8' x 12' storage building. At issue before the Board is the Ordinance requirement of an accessory structure in an "R-2" zoning being 60 feet from the frontage on a street. The lot in question is 50 feet in width. To the south, there is an open alley. In the past, there was a 20' x 24' garage in the location in question. The property is located in one of the older established areas. The present structure on the site is a wood frame house, and there is mature landscaping on the property. The lot is on a corner lot and both "B" March 21, 1988 Item No. 4 - Continued and Beechwood Streets are narrow in size with no immediate plans for future improvements. The street most affected would be "B" Street. The applicant proposes for the frontage to be 39 feet. There is a wire fence surrounding the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Neither the applicant or a representative was present. A motion was made to defer this request for 30 days. The motion passed a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. This item will appear again on the April 18, 1988, meeting agenda. March 21, 1988 Item No. 5 - Z-4992 Owner: Arthur Robinson Address: 4420 West 20th Street Description: Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 25 Sidney B. Johnson's Addition to the City of Little Rock Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial Variance Requested: From the area regulations provision of Section 7-103.3-D.1, 2 and 3 to permit an addition to remain with a reduced front, side, and rear yard setbacks. Justification: Because I was not aware of the law, I relied on my contractor to obtain and secure all necessary papers regarding the construction of which I found out later he did not do. Present Use of Property: Commercial Proposed Use of Property: Commercial STAFF ANALYSIS: This issue is before the Board of Adjustment as a result of an enforcement action. The applicant has already constructed a brick building on the lot. The problems concerning this request is a reduced front, rear, and side yard setbacks. The property is zoned "C-3" General Commercial and the ordinance requirement states that a front yard setback should be 25 feet, and the applicant is proposing 20 feet. The side yard should be 15 feet, and the applicant is proposing 3.3 feet. Rear yards in this zone should be 25 feet, and the applicant is proposing 14.6 feet. March 21, 1988 Item No. 5 - Continued Surrounding the property on all sides are residential uses. West 19th Street is a closed street in this particular block, closed in the sense that it has never been built through to this block. What the applicant is proposing is that the entrance and exiting from the lot be off Washington Street. The slope of the property is such that the lot is of higher elevation on the Washington Street side and part of West 20th Street. The building in question is on Lot 4 of this addition. The applicant is proposing the construction of a fence to be placed along the south property line. Staff is in support of this variance due to the fact the structure is already built and is placed on a concrete slab which presents the problem of it not being feasible for the location to be changed. ENGINEERING ISSUES: There are none to be reported at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval subject to (a) the parking area being brought up to standard and striped, ( b) providing of a six -foot wooden fence along the north and south property line, and (c) any lighting on the site should be directed inward toward the structure. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Mr. Arthur Robinson, was in attendance. There were several people in attendance opposed to the request. Mr. Robinson stated that the building was placed wrong on the site by the contractor and that at the time the building was built, he was in the hospital but had been assured by the contractor that he had all the necessary permits for the construction. Mr. Robinson was then asked if he had any problems with staff's recommendation. He stated, no, but to place the fence along the south property line would block the corner. Staff stated that the south side was incorrectly stated in the staff's recommendation and it should be on the east side. Mr. Robinson stated that he could accommodate the recommendation. March 21, 1988 Item No. 5 - Continued Mrs. Grace Griffen stated that she saw a sign on the property for a liquor permit and did not want it in her neighborhood. Mrs. Elizabeth Eckford stated that Mr. Robinson is known in the neighborhood for operating a shot house in a shotgun house in the neighborhood and would not like for this request to be granted. The chairman then stated it was not the duty of the Board to address the types of concerns the objectors were stating. The Board could only deal with the building setbacks. For the record, Gwen Miller, Mary Paradise, and Travis Turner all were against the request for the same above stated reasons. Mr. Kenny Scott of the Zoning Enforcement Office stated that his office had been involved with this issue for some time. Mr. Robinson, in the Zoning Enforcement Office's opinion, misrepresented his request when the building permit was issued. Mr. Scott showed and stated that Mr. Robinson's building permit indicated he wanted it for a storage building to be placed on the adjacent lot not the one where the building is presently located. Mr. Scott also stated that he has been informed that a beer permit was requested for the site but had been denied by the Alcoholic Beverage Commission. After more discussion among the Board, a motion was then made to deny the request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. March 21, 1988 Item No. 6 - Z-4994 Owner: Catholic Diocese of Little Rock Address: 822 Louisiana Street Description: Lots 7, 8, 9, and 10, Block 88, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "GB" General Business Variance Requested: (1) A waiver from the filing fee. (2) From the off - street parking provisions of Section 8-101-I of the Central Little Rock Code of Ordinances to permit a parking area not meeting ordinance standards. Justification: When the initial operating budget was made this problem was not anticipated and we do not have any funds at this time to pave the area. Present Use of Property: Parking Proposed Use of Property: Parking STAFF ANALYSIS: The request before the Board at this time came about because of an enforcement action. First before the initial request can be addressed, the applicant has requested of the Board to allow for a waiver from the filing fee requirement. This request comes from Our House, a nonprofit organization, which provides assistance to homeless people by providing food and assisting them in finding employment. This request is not an unusual one, and according to the City Attorney one in which the Board can act on if they so see fit. Secondly, the applicant, Our House, is required through the Central Little Rock Ordinance to pave and stripe all areas used for parking. The applicant states that this organization operates on a limited budget and was not aware of this requirement when the initial operating budqet for this year was adopted. Due to the fact the operating monies March 21, 1988 Item No. 6 - Continued come from different sources, the only way that the parking area can be brought up to standards is through fund raising activities. Therefore, the applicant is asking for a delay of one year in order to raise the money and correc the violation by bringing the parking area up to standards. The location of this site is at the corner of Louisiana and 9th Streets. The parking area is basically used by the Vista Volunteers for pickup and deliveries of items. The area is gravelled with a nonexisting curb cut off Louisiana Street. On-site is an existing brick structure. Staff sees no reason at this time why the applicant's request cannot be honored for a period of one year. If the Board agrees and approves the delay, the applicant should note that the entrance and the exiting to the parking area should be taken off the alley and no longer off Louisiana Street. If the improvements have not taken place after a period of one year, the applicant will he required to come back before the Board to get any additional extensions. ENGINEERING ISSUES: There are none to be reported at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the requested variance from the parking standards for one year with the understanding of the applicant that if at that time, the requirements cannot be met, he would then have to come back before the Board of Adjustment. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Mr. Joe Flaherty, Executive Director of Our House, represented the owners of the property. The Board first took action on the request for waiver of the filing fee. The motion for approval passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. Secondly, the Board addressed the request for a delay in the paving requirements for a period of one year. Mr. Flaherty stated that the delay was needed in order for the funds to be raised for the paving. A motion was made to approve the request per staff's recommendation. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. March 21, 1988 Item No. 7 - Z-5000 Owner: Marcia Heien Address: 2100 North Beechwood Description: Lot 1, Block 4, Country Club Heights Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the area regulations provision of Section 7-101.2-D.1 to permit a reduced front yard setback. Justification: The lot is small in size; therefore, I am in need of the requested variance. Present Use of Property: Residential Proposed Use of Property: Residential STAFF ANALYSIS: The request before the Board of Adjustment at this time is to allow for the construction of a house with a reduced front setback. The ordinance states that for a corner lot the requirement of two front yards must be met. The 25-foot front yard setback will not be met on the Stonewall Street side. The applicant is proposing for that frontage to be 7.5 feet but all other requirements of the ordinance will be met. This lot was platted many years ago. The proposed two-story brick structure will be 33' x 49' on a lot measuring 45' x 140'. By meeting the required side yard setback on the north side, the amount of total separation to the adjacent house will be approximately 12 feet. The property is located in the Heights area of the City. Surrounding the property is residential usage. At present, the lot is vacant, and the elevation of the lot is considerably higher than the street. March 21, 1988 Item No. 7 - Continued Staff feels that the applicant does display a hardship due to the lot being only 45 feet and located on a corner. The majority of the setbacks on other lots in the area are not in compliance with the ordinance and the request will not place an additional impact on the area. ENGINEERING ISSUES: There are none to be reported at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Mrs. Marcia Heien, the applicant, was in attendance at the meeting. There were approximately ten people present to object to the request. Mrs. Heien addressed the Board and stated she had no objections to staff's recommendation and was unaware of what all the objections involved; therefore, she would ask that those persons be allowed to come first after which she would like the opportunity to rebutt any objections stated. Mr. Herbert Mays who lives at 2021 Beechwood spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the setback propoosed for Beechwood would be the same as all the other houses up the street. The only thing being asked is that it is a little closer to Stonewall. If the variance is not approved, someone is going to build a 15-foot wide structure that is going to face Stonewall. He said what the owner is trying to do is the best use and certainly would add to the property values in the neighborhood. Mrs. Connie Holitik of 2101 North Beechwood spoke about her concerns regarding: (a) the lot being too small for such a large house, (b) the applicant's notice stated a request for a front yard setback and the earlier notice that was brought around to the immediate property owner stated a side yard setback, (c) the house being lower on one side and higher on the other because of the lot terrain, (d) the fact that the variance is for such a large encroachment. Mrs. Holitik also submitted a petition and pictures for the Board's review. March 21, 1988 Item No. 7 - Continued Mrs. Lillie Porter of 2108 North Beechwood addressed the Board concerning the erosion of the street with no retaining wall being planned to be built. Lisa McEntire who lives adjacent to where the new house is proposed stated that she and her husband were aware that the lot was being sold but had not had an opportunity to review any of the plans. Another concern is what effects this structure will have on the property values of other houses in the immediate area. Maria Heien spoke to address the objections stated. First of all, she is not building on a hillside. Her lot is about 3 feet higher than the street level. Secondly, the bank on the south side is eroding, and it is her intention to do something about it, but not to the point of building a retaining wall. Mrs. Heien presented a scale drawing which showed that the new structure would rise about 5 feet above the adjacent house. The separation from this structure is about 16 feet. There will not be any blocking of anyone's light and air circulation. The applicant was then asked if she would be willing to accept a 30-day deferral in order to allow time for her to meet with those in objection, the applicant stated that a 30-day deferral would be a hardship due to the fact that she is operating under a tight time schedule and would prefer a decision today if possible. There was considerable discussion between the applicant and those persons in objection. The chairman then suggested that the applicant and the objectors if they were willing to go outside of the meeting and see if some type of agreement could be decided upon between them. All parties agreed so the item was moved to the end of the agenda in order to allow time for the parties to meet. After approximately 20 to 30 minutes, the applicant and the objectors returned to the meeting. The applicant stated that an agreement had been reached which consisted of (a) the frontage of Stonewall Street being 9 feet, (b) the width size of the house being 31 feet, and (c) the house size being reduced from two-story to one and one -half story. The objectors wanted some assurances that this agreement would be enforced, and Kenny Scott of the Enforcement Office stated he would be responsible and any concerns should be addressed to his office. Staff informed the applicant that a copy of what was agreed upon would have to be drafted and March 21, 1988 Item No. 7 - Continued signed by the applicant and a designated person from the group in opposition. The applicant agreed and Dr. Holitik was designated as the person from the opposing group. A motion was then made to approve the agreed upon plan conditioned upon a written copy being submitted to the Planning staff along with a copy of the modified plan. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. March 21, 1988 Item No. 8 - Z-4991 Owner: Lloyd Norman Address: 1400 Washington Street Description: Lot 11, Block 5, H.F. Buhler's 9th Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "R-4" Two Family District variances Requested: (1) From the height and area provisions of Section 5-102-2.B to permit an accessory structure less than 6 feet from a single family structure. (2) From the height and area provisions of Section 5-102-2.0 to permit an accessory structure less than 60 feet from the front property line. Justification: The construction of a carport would aid in the protection of the car when not in use from tree sap, leaves, bird droppings, and the weather. Present Use of Property: Residential Proposed Use of Property: Residential STAFF REPORT: A. Enqineerinq Issues There are none to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis The request before the Board of Adjustment is for the construction of a carport with reduced front yard setbacks and less than 6 feet of separation of the new structure from the principal structure. The ordinance states that an accessory structure in an "R-2" zone has to be 60 feet from the street frontages. What the applicant is proposing is for a zero frontage on March 21, 1988 Item No. 8 - Continued West 14th Street. On this frontage, there is a wire fence that is along the property line. Two or three feet adjacent to this fence is a concrete drainage ditch that separates this property from the street. On the frontage to Washington Street, the applicant proposes a frontage of 18 feet. The lot is 57 feet in width and even if the carport was moved further back, the requirement could still not be met. The property is surrounded by residential uses. Both streets are built up to standards. So far, no future street improvements are planned. The drive to the carport is in place, and the construction will consist of the roof being placed on poles with runoff directed toward the drainage ditch. The applicant plans for the new structure not to be attached in order to save the view from a window on the north side. There is a garage on the site that is used for another car. Staff feels that the proposal from the applicant would not place any impact to the surrounding property owners. The construction will be compatible with the other residents. The fact that this is a corner lot and with the size being only 57 feet in width, the requirement of the ordinance cannot be met. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval subject to the carport never being enclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Norman agreed with staff's recommendation. A motion was then made to approve the variance conditioned upon the carport never being enclosed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. March 21, 1988 Item No. 9 - Z-4995 Owner: Don Dixon Address: 2706 Dorchester Street Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Request: Administrative appeal action to a home occupation denial ruling. This appeal has come about because of an earlier denial by the Home Occupational Review Board during the last month meeting. The applicant is proposing to operate a bicycle service and repair facility in the garage which is attached to his residence. This home occupation, which would be called The Ground Crew would cater to a very limited group of serious adult racers and touring cyclists. The repair and service work would be done all with hand tools. All work and storage will be indoors. There will be no signs or merchandise displayed. The only inventory would be a few chains, cables, tires, tubes, and rows of hand bar tape. All these items will be stored in a small utility closet which is a part of the garage structure. Since there will be limited clientele, the applicant proposes to provide pickup and delivery service. Therefore, very little traffic will be generated. If and when customers do drive up, the applicant feels that his driveway offers sufficient off-street parking for three vehicles in addition to his own. There will not be any problem with the noise factor or offensive smells from the solvents used. The issue before the Board is a determination as to whether this type of bicycle repair service can exist as a home occupation. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Don Dixon, the applicant, was present. After a considerable amount of discussion, the Board ruled that the applicant's request was reasonable, and a bicyle repair shop could exist as a home occupation with certain stipulations. Those March 21, 1988 Item No. 9 - Continued stipulations being (a) no signs can be posted, (b) no retail sales, (c) no outside storage, (d) no outside display, and (e) the Zoning Enforcement Office will address any complaints that may occur. City of Little Rock Office of Comprehensive Planning MARCH 25, 1988 City Hall Markham at Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 371-4790 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES ON THE PROPOSED PARKING POLICY CHANGE TO THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT FOR THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK. On March 21, 1988, the Board of Adjustment addressed staff's presentation on the proposed policy change for parking in the Central Little Rock Business District. In the presentation by staff it was pointed out that after careful review of research materials received from the Planning Advisory Service, there were three possible alternatives to the parking change, all of which were outlined to them in a memorandum dated February 11, 1988. The three alternatives consisted of (a) Parking reduction to increase mass transit use, (b) Fees in lieu of parking, and (c) Special parking requirements in the form of a special overlay district being established. Staff informed the Board that of the three, the third or (c) was the best suited for the City of Little Rock. One major reason being that by establishing a special overlay district, this would allow for the Board a more flexible means of assessing each case on its own merits as well as provide a written policy for further reference. One of the concerns of discussion surrounding this parking policy proposal (c) was what would happen if after five (5) years an applicant could not provide the parking. Staff explained that basically that would be something the Board would have to address at that time, but three choices would be to (1) extend the number of feet in which the applicant could seek parking i.e. more than the 600 feet required, (2) upon review of the request, the Board could disallow any further need for the applicant to satisfy the parking requirement and, (3) an account could be established by the City for the sole intent of the City obtaining space in order to provide parking in the Central Business District. The applicant would be assessed a fee for the amount of parking spaces which are deficient. Several of the Board members voiced their agreement with the staff's explanation and felt that at this point, the policy ror the special overlay district was workable and would serve the Board's intent. A motion was then made to recommend the establishment of a special overlay district in the Central Business District of the City of Little Rock for the sole purpose of a change in the parking requirement. A memorandum stating the above request will be sent to the Plans Committee for review in order that an amendment to the City -wide Zoning Ordiance can be drafted and sent on to the Planning Commission and Board of Directors. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent (Wells, McGowan, Alderman). AB /se City of Little Rock Office of City Hell Comprehensive Markham at Broadway Planning Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 371.4790 March 15, 1988 MEMORANDUM TO: LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS FROM: ANNA BROWN, PLANNING TECHNICIAN I OFFICE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SUBJECT: POLICY CHANGE FOR PARKING IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Attached is an outline of possible changes to the present parking requirements for the Central Business District. Of the three preliminary policy changes mentioned staff feels that the third or (c) is more conducive to the City of Little Rock's needs. If you recall, this item was scheduled for discussion at the agenda session for the February 22nd meeting. Since there was not a majority of members on the Board in attendance, this item was deferred until the March 21, 1988 meeting. Please review the attachment for discussion that will be held at 1:00 p.m. on March 21, 1988 approximately 30 minutes before the regularly scheduled agenda session. Your input regarding this matter is welcomed and encouraged. AB /se Attachment PRESENT PARKING POLICY USED IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Business and Professional Office: (and similar use or establishment) One (1) space per four hundred (400) square feet of gross floor area. For structures larger than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, the above parking requirement shall be provided and the following percentage shall be taken of the remaining gross floor area: 10,001 to 20,000 sq. ft. - 95% of Parking Requirement 20,001 to 30,000 sq. ft. - 90% of Parking Requirement 30,001 to 40,000 sq. ft. - 85% of Parking Requirement 40,000 sq. ft. and up - 80% of Parking Requirement Commercial Uses: a. General Business and Retail Sales (except as otherwise provided herein) - one (1) space per three hundred (300) square feet of gross floor area up to ten thousand (10,000) square feet. For structures larger than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, the above parking requirement shall be provided and the following percentage shall be taken of the remaining gross floor area: 10,001 to 20,000 sq. ft. - 95% of Parking Requirement 20,001 to 30,000 sq. ft. - 90% of Parking Requirement 30,001 to 40,000 sq. ft. - 85% of Parking Requirement 40,000 sq. ft. and up - 80% of Parking Requirement b. Restaurants (and similar establishments serving food and beverages) - one (1) space for each one hundred (100) square feet of gross floor area. CITY OF LITTLE ROCK February 11, 1988 MEMORANDUM TO: Little Rock Board of Adjustment Members FROM: Anna Brown, Planning Technician SUBJECT: Policy Change for Parking in the Central Business District In accordance with the directive of the Board of Adjustment at a meeting held on January 19, 1988, staff has compiled for you three alternatives for the possible policy change regarding parking requirements in the Central Business District. Past history of cases coming before the Board indicates that in the past ten years, there have been a total of three variances requested and the Board has approved two with lease agreements for a period of five years being attached. The one which the Board denied was not only deficient in parking, but also there was a question about the amount of floor space the applicant was requesting. Staff feels that the Central Business District parking requirements are unworkable primarily for two reasons. First, the Metrocentre designated area has no parking requirements. Secondly, areas west of Broadway are required to adhere to the standard Citywide requirements. Note: Reasons for Policy changes to the parking requirements for Central Business District in the City of Little Rock: Special public interest should be addressed in regard to the Central Business District because of the fact the area stands as the center of community and business involvement. CBD is the hub of all government activities for the City, County and state. Properly functioning CBD areas help to promote tourism and convention activities as well as a transit system that is conducive to the needs of the citizens and productive in generating funds. By establishing a new parking policy for the Central Business District, one might suspect discrimination of other areas or question why special treatment is being proposed for this area. Therefore, besides the reasons stated above, a number of others could apply to the City of Little Rock Central Business District. When the present ordinance was adopted in 1980, some of the Central Business District zonings were converted to "C-4" and "I-2" and in most cases presented the problem of "C-4" and "I-2" zonings being incompatible and inappropriate for the district. Secondly, parking requirements under the present ordinance were established with intent of addressing the needs of the outlying suburban areas where malls and shopping centers possibly could be developed. Thirdly, development in the Central Business District has historically had different patterns from the other areas of the City. Fourth, the possible loss of businesses which are vital to the economic base of Downtown. Fifth, and finally, the need for the City to actively maintain and assure redevelopment of businesses with innovative use and design. Alternatives that could address the intent behind the proposed policy changes for parking in the Central Business District are as follows: A. Parkinq reduction to increase mass transit use. Ride sharing refers to work trips made by mass transit, car pooling, fleet pooling, subscription bus service. A typical program involves setting of ride share in advance for two or more persons on a continuing basis. The riders in such programs are matched by routes tailored to fit the needs of individuals who will share rides. The way in which the parking alternative would be applied is to not allow for any parking variances in the Central Business District. Attempts would be made to encourage employers to provide employees with bus passes in order to commute back and forth to work. This would allow for parking on -site to be used by customers and help generate funds for mass transit. B. Fees in lieu of parking. In some cities' business districts, the community allows for payment of fees in lieu of required off-site parking. Such payments are typically based on a percentage of the cost of providing parking in these locations. The intent of collecting such fees is to allow a municipality to finance and build central parking garages which when constructed, would be available to the customers and employees of those businesses that have contributed funds. Payment in lieu of parking may also be used to make small or odd-shaped lots usable for development since payments may be substituted for the required parking. To date, however, there has been limited application of fees in lieu of zoning provisions. The limited applications reflect a variety of planning and administrative problems in the use of such provisions. The problems include: 1. Convincing developers and the financial community that payment of fees in lieu of parking will, in fact, result in the construction of parking. 2. Choosing and acquiring sites and locations convenient to those land uses that contribute fees-in-lieu. 3. Collecting sufficient in -lieu contributions to make the actual construction of parking feasible. 4. Determining the appropriate charges for fees-in-lieu contribution and for the management of any parking facilitiy construction through the colleciton of such fees. C. Special parking requirements for the Central Business District. The concept surrounding this possible change would be to allow for flexible parking requirements in the Central Business District. The boundary lines for the Central Business District would remain as they presently are outlined. The Arkansas River to the north, I-30 interstate to the east, I-630 interstate to the south, and Cross Street to the west. Staff is suggesting a special overlay district be established that would be slightly different in that it would exclude the Metrocentre area, the MacArthur Park area, as well as that area south of the I -630 interstate. The Metrocentre area has a zero parking requirement, and staff feels that the MacArthur Park area as well as the area south of I-630 could adequately meet the present parking requirements. Applications for parking variances that come within the special overlay district would be taken on their own merit when measuring need and ability to provide parking, but in those cases where the new floor space does not increase the traffic flow of customers or increase the number of employees, zero parking would be permitted. The burden of proof would still lie with the applicant in order to meet this new requirement. For those applications that exhibit an obvious increase in the amount of traffic flow from customers and employees when additional floor space is constructed, the applicant would be required to obtain a five-year lease agreement for the required number of parking spaces. The lease parking spaces would have to be within 600 feet of the site with a renewable option. In those cases where the lease would not be renewed, the applicant will be required to return to the Board of Adjustment and justify the inability to provide the parking spaces or demonstrate an alternative means for providing the required parking spaces. AB:jt7 DATE B O A R D OF A D J U S T M E N T V OT E R EC O R D ITEM NUMBERS `+AYE 0 NAYS A ABSENT ABSTAIN Thomas MCGowan av rAld N John McDaniel Earline Douglas C ynthia Alderman MEN MOOMMMEMEN Eduard Jim Mitchell N iii Ronald Pierce ��i�eeiiii� Rex D. Crane `+AYE 0 NAYS A ABSENT ABSTAIN Board of Adjustment 'March 21, 1988 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m. Secretary Chairman Date City of Little Rock HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MARCH 3, 1988 4:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Chairman William H. Kennedy, III. A quorum was present (William H. Kennedy, III, Thomas Johnson, John Jarrard, Cheryl Nichols). Ms. Jacalyn Carfagno) was absent. The Chairman asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the last two meetings. Commissioner Jarrard stated that the minutes of September 3, 1987, page 4, paragraph 3 specify "the lattice work to be 1/2" or 3/8" wide." It should have stated "l and 1/2" or 1 and 3/8" wide." Also on page 6, paragraph 7 states "cut around the trees," and should have read "cut 258 off the top of the trees." There being no further corrections, it was moved by Commissioner Jarrard and seconded by Commissioner Johnson to adopt the minutes with changes. The minutes of both meetings were approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. Item #1 - Recommednation regarding the Governor's Mansion National Register Historic District Amendment. Commissioner Nichols gave a brief presentation. She stated that it had been requested that the Little Rock Historic District Commission review all National Register nominiations within the boundaries of the City of Little Rock. She said that it was part of the requirement for Little Rock being a Certified Local Government, making the City eligible for federal funding through the Arkansas State Historic Preservation Program. It was moved by Commissioner Jarrard and seconded by Commissioner Johnson to adopt the recommendation. The item was adopted with a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes, 1 abstention, 1 absent. Item #2 - Brochure to the MacArthur Park Historic District Property Owners. A review of this item was given by Ms. Molly Satterfield and Commissioner Nichols. Commissioner Nichols stated that she was open for suggestions with the outline she had presented Commissioner Kennedy suggested adding a history of the ordinance. Commissioner Johnson commented that there was some confusion between the MacArthur Park Historic District, the Capitol Zoning District, and the Governor's Mansion National Register Historic District.. Commissioner Nichols stated that the text for the brochure would be ready by summer. Item #3 - Adoption of a Calender for 1988. It was moved by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Nichols to approve the calendar for 1988 (attachment). Commissioner Jarrard stated for the record that he would not be able to attend the April 7th meeting. Item #4 - The National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Commissioner Kennedy asked if money was available and Mrs. Satterfield replied that money was available in the City budget. The Commission agreed to join the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions. Commissioner Jarrard stated that he would like for the Little Rock Historic District Commission to request that the Capitol Zoning District Commission require design review of all structures, including noncontributing structures in this district. He related an incident that occurred at 7.0th and Spring Streets. Ms. Satterfield was instructed by Commissioner Kennedy to draft a letter to the Capitol Zoning District Commission. Commissioner Nichols inquired about the status of the 1987 C.L.G. project. Ms. Satterfield responded that it was in process and in the City Manager's office and that the Quapaw Quarter Association was going to administer the project. Commissioner Nichols said that they needed to contact the Quapaw Quarter Association regarding the administration of the project and Commissioner Johnson suggested that the Commission send a letter to Ms. Nancy Roy, President of the Quapaw Quarter Associ- ation. The commission agreed. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. nm